Missing files excuses by PIOs are no more valid : CIC issues show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on the PIO for obstructing the delivery of information and directs the public authority to institute an internal enquiry immediately and take necessary action against the persons found involved in the missing of the file;

http://upcpri.blogspot.in/2014/03/missing-files-excuses-by-pios-are-no.html


CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B¬Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003063¬SA
(Sh.Rahul Kumar Goyal Vs. SDM, Delhi)
Appellant
:
Sh.Rahul Kumar Goyal
Respondent
:
SDM , Delhi
Date of hearing
:
26.2.2014
Date of decision
:
26.2.2014
Information Commissioner
:
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections
:
Sections 3, 19(3) of the
RTI Act
Result
:
Appeal allowed / disposed of
FACTS
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is absent.
2. The appellant submitted that he is seeking the information
through his RTI application
dt.13¬4¬2012, a copy of the affidavit of marital status submitted by
his wife Ms. Swati
Kalgaonkar, whom he had married on 24
th
Dec.,2003 and registered before the SDM on
29¬12¬2003. The appellant further submitted that Ms.
Swati Kalgaonkar was already
married to one Mr. Abdul Aziz before his marriage with her. But she
submitted a false
affidavit to the SDM that she was not married. The
appellant has shown to the
Commission, a copy of the certificate of marriage of Ms.Swati
Kalgaonkar with Mr. Abdul
Aziz. Subsequently, Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar obtained an ex¬parte decree
of divorce with the
appellant, from a court in USA. After this divorce with the
appellant, Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar
married another man, Mr. Sachin Brahmi, which was also dissolved
because she did not
disclose information about her previous marriages.
3. The appellant also submitted that the above affidavit is
required in connection with the
criminal cases filed by Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar accusing him and his
family members under
section 498A IPC. The affidavit is the key document which would prove
his innocence in
the criminal case.
4. The PIO/SDM(NW) replied to the appellant by his letter dated 21
st
May, 2012 stating
that no records for the year 2003 are presently available in his
office. But the FAA by his
order dated 5¬7¬2012 did not agree with the PIO and directed him to
get the concerned file
located and provide the required documents to the appellant and
furnish the reply to the
appellant within 15 days. In spite of this FAA Order, the
appellant could not get the
required information from the PIO so far.
5. In view of the above, the Commission views this matter seriously
as the PIO has failed
to comply with the orders of FAA, which amounts to obstructing the
delivery of information,
thereby breaching the provisions of section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also
observes that whenever the Public Authority makes a
claim that the relevant file is
missing, it is expected to give detailed explanation as to when did
they discover that the
file was missing, what action they had taken to trace the same and
what could be done, if
the file is not traced, what is the policy, procedure and regulatory
mechanism available in
the office when the files are missing or claimed to have been missing,
etc. In the absence
of detailed explanation, the Commission cannot accept the reply of PIO
given in a casual
manner, amounting to denial of information under RTI Act, as nowhere
in the Act, such a
defence is available to the Public Authority. Claiming that a
particular file is missing,
establishes the fact that the file was with them, till it was found
missing or mis¬placed or
deliberately removed. Hence, that information would fall in the
category of information
held by the Public Authority and thus it is the responsibility of the
Public Authority to share
that information with the appellant.
6. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority as under:¬
(a)
To show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on the PIO for obstructing the
delivery of information; his explanation should reach the commission
within 3 weeks
from the date of receipt of this order
(b)
To institute an internal enquiry immediately and take necessary action against
the persons found involved in the missing of the file;
(c)
To comply with the order dated 5¬7¬2012 of the FAA within one month.
7. The Commission also recommends to the Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Government
of NCT Delhi, for immediate enquiry into this matter involving the
obstruction of furnishing the
information to the appellant, as the said information is highly
relevant for his life and liberty.
The Commission advises the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD to
direct the concerned
officer to trace the information and furnish the same to the
appellant. A copy of this order shall
be given to the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD for information
and necessary action.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(Ashwani K. Sharma))
Designated Officer
Address of the parties:
1.
The CPIO under RTI
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o Addl. District Magistrate cum Land Acquisition Collector,
N/W Distt. Kanjhawala,
Delhi (011¬25953786)
2.
Shri Rahul Kumar Goyal
67C¬Ground Floor, Parsvanath Panchvati,
Taj Nagri Phase¬II
AGRA¬282001 (UP)
3.
The Appellate Authority under RTI
O/o Addl. District Magistrate¬cum¬
Appellate Authority
North West District, Kanjhawala,
DELHI (O11¬25953786)
COPY FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY ACTION TO:
4.
Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
SECRETARIAT,
I.P.ESTATE
NEW DELHI¬110002.
(Phone: 23392020)



--
- Urvashi Sharma
Contact 9369613513
Right to Information Helpline 8081898081
Helpline Against Corruption 9455553838
http://yaishwaryaj-seva-sansthan.hpage.co.in/

http://upcpri.blogspot.in/